@Mike "The people, not the NRA and certainly not the government," There you go Mike, you think the government is not the same thing as the
people. So why even talk about the constitution since to you we
don't have a republic, democracy or anything else defined by
self-governace?You only agree with our government when you get your
way. Sorry that's not what democracy means.
There have always been "mockers" who think it is funny to revile the
Constitution or any other document that limits the power of government. They
think that government is put on earth to limit the people. They
ignore the profound words of the Declaration of Independence: "We hold these
truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed
by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life,
Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments
are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the
governed,"Our creator, not government, endowed us with
unalienable Rights. The people, not the government, determines the limits of
the government's authority.The people, not the NRA and
certainly not the government, defined our right to keep and bear arms.There are always those who want to tax SOMEBODY else to control SOMEBODY else.
A violence tax is a crackpot idea because it depends on a taxing authority to
define "violence". You can bet that that authority would never consider
it violent to stick their fingers in your wallet and take your money by force..
Why do Conservatives love their freedom limiting "Sin Taxes."This could levy a hefty tax on religious books or is reading about violence
ok?What about sex (real or suggested) in media, that shouldn't
escape a "societal sin tax."News medias showing violence
should be double taxed because it's reality and more disturbing.Another attempt to distract people from the fact that the NRA wants everyone
(lunatics too, since some of there most ardent supporters sound like lunatics)
to have a warm gun, because nothing has changed for over 200 years and a baar
might get you.
I'm wondering how much the "violence tax" would be on the sale of a
bible. There sure is a lot of violence, death, and destruction in that baby!
Personally I'm not opposed to the conversation proposed by the writer.
It's a pretty tricky one in terms of what is the violence to be taxed?
Video games that promote murder, or football? Taxing tobacco and alcohol is
pretty simple, and yet even that has controversy. Still this is one of the
traditional uses of taxes..to discourage or encourage given behaviors for the
good of society. What I do object to is the immediate jump JCS
makes to "left wing"...and then the flight of logic that banning these
pieces of media will prevent the killing of more school children. School
children were killed long before computers and even long before tv. By the way
what is "left wing"?
This article is absolutely correct about modern Hollywood's relentless
promotion of violence as a recreational activity. Indeed, it is a part of a
deliberate attack on traditional American morality. However, this article does
not go far enough. Instead of merely being taxed, these ultra-violent
productions should be banned.The left wing claims that the First
Amendment protects their right to make these violent shows. This is nonsense.
From the beginning, the Supreme Court has ruled that a State can outlaw speech
which incites violence. That is exactly what these shows are.In
short, our legislature must have the courage to do what is right to protect
society from violence. Ban these shows immediately before more innocent school
children are massacred.